• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

lo/Jack

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Koodog

Junior Member
I was thinking the same thing. Someone saying they could come by to resolve the issue for a fee.

Lo-Jack just doesn't work the way that has been described here. It emits NO signal to the police unless the vehicle has been reported stolen and a signal sent out to activate the Lo-Jack device in the car. Then, it sends a signal out every 30 seconds (as I recall) with an alphanumeric code that a law enforcement receiver can capture and then run via SVS to determine what vehicle that code belongs to. But, the code is attached to a vehicle already entered into SVS, it's not some random "I'm a stolen car" code!
It most certainly does work the way I've described. Why do you think I posted?
I also never said anything about a fee.
My emails and phone calls are very clearly legit from Lo/Jack.
 


Koodog

Junior Member
Even if Lo-Jack informs the police, it won't get entered into SVS based upon their contact, so the police would not yet be involved. Until the owner or operator of the vehicle makes contact with the police and reports it as stolen, the code from the device wouldn't match a stolen vehicle. THAT is why this is a head scratcher.
Agree.
That was my concern.
Lo/Jack specifically told me vehicle was at risk of being "contacted" by police.

Exact wording:
"In order to prevent you or whoever drives this truck from being contacted by law enforcement and to keep this unit from sending any more false alerts to law enforcement please contact me at your earliest convenience."
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Yes I was advised it was going off in error. Evidently they could not deactivate it.
I understand if car dealer did not install it, they would not know. However my query is should it not be known? Clearly some indication inside of vehicle of Lo/Jack being present would resolve any issue as I experienced.
The whole idea behind Lo-Jack is that it's hidden.


Any driver of this vehicle(company truck) stood the risk of being stopped and detained or whatever LE is capable of because of an unknown device. I find this unacceptable.
You're wrong - as explained above.


Lo/Jack offered nothing but to remove the device.
Nothing? That offer is above and beyond anything they're required to do.


I agree probably a good investment when it works, however my discussion is when it DOESN'T work.
Which means Lo/Jack knew trucks location when it sent out stolen signal. I call that tracking
Because a procedure is supposed to be followed does not make it so.
You're right! I know what you can do - just tell them to shove off and that you don't want their help. Then, you can just go have it removed on your dime.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
Agree.
That was my concern.
Lo/Jack specifically told me vehicle was at risk of being "contacted" by police.

Exact wording:
"In order to prevent you or whoever drives this truck from being contacted by law enforcement and to keep this unit from sending any more false alerts to law enforcement please contact me at your earliest convenience."
That almost sounds to me like a hacker/scammer. You should perhaps contact Lo/Jack completely independently of those calls and emails to see if its legit.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
It most certainly does work the way I've described. Why do you think I posted?
I also never said anything about a fee.
My emails and phone calls are very clearly legit from Lo/Jack.
Right - tell the one guy on here who is intimately familiar with how this works on the law-enforcement side that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Way to go, champ.
 

Koodog

Junior Member
The whole idea behind Lo-Jack is that it's hidden.


You're wrong - as explained above.


Nothing? That offer is above and beyond anything they're required to do.


You're right! I know what you can do - just tell them to shove off and that you don't want their help. Then, you can just go have it removed on your dime.

It's quite clear your mission in life is to be confrontational.
Why do you find me so bothersome?
I merely have asked a question about the legality of having an unknown device such as a Lo/Jack installed on a vehicle with no traceability. When such device fails it puts driver of said vehicle in a quandary.
 

Koodog

Junior Member
Right - tell the one guy on here who is intimately familiar with how this works on the law-enforcement side that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Way to go, champ.
Once again appreciate the creative description. Champ. I take that as in a victor.
A retired officer may be familiar on how its supposed to work, but doubtful he would speak for EVERY LEO in the country.
My comment was about my incident only. The device on my vehicle was transmitting that it was stolen, thus a defective unit. This came from the manufacturer, not a policeman.
Your comments reflect your ignorance of things not being perfect. I do know there are many parts of the country where Lo/Jack is unavailable. Thus I doubt LE would know much about their operation and have any procedures for them.
Again I ask....what is so offensive about my posts that you feel you must demean me or belittle me? Perhaps your just a bully keyboard warrior?
 

Colorado777

Junior Member
Yes I was advised it was going off in error. Evidently they could not deactivate it.
I understand if car dealer did not install it, they would not know. However my query is should it not be known? Clearly some indication inside of vehicle of Lo/Jack being present would resolve any issue as I experienced.
This would also tip off a thief (possibly one that works at a dealership) who could then attempt to defeat the device.

Any driver of this vehicle(company truck) stood the risk of being stopped and detained or whatever LE is capable of because of an unknown device. I find this unacceptable.
That sounds like scare tactics to talk you into having it removed. If it's in error, the police get a message that the vehicle is not stolen so they do not track it. They put LoJacks in everything from gas generators to bobcats to boats to motorcycles to vehicles to even new light poles. The police have zero idea of what they are even looking for until they run the code which provides further details.

Lo/Jack offered nothing but to remove the device.
Wow, someone paid good money for a working device.

I agree probably a good investment when it works, however my discussion is when it DOESN'T work.
Which means Lo/Jack knew trucks location when it sent out stolen signal. I call that tracking
Because a procedure is supposed to be followed does not make it so.
The police would receive a signal which would come back as not stolen so they would not track it. The police officer reports their location
but they don't know the location of the vehicle until they track it.
 

Koodog

Junior Member
This would also tip off a thief (possibly one that works at a dealership) who could then attempt to defeat the device.



That sounds like scare tactics to talk you into having it removed. If it's in error, the police get a message that the vehicle is not stolen so they do not track it. They put LoJacks in everything from gas generators to bobcats to boats to motorcycles to vehicles to even new light poles. The police have zero idea of what they are even looking for until they run the code which provides further details.



Wow, someone paid good money for a working device.



The police would receive a signal which would come back as not stolen so they would not track it. The police officer reports their location
but they don't know the location of the vehicle until they track it.
Thank you for your reply.
Do you have any idea of why Lo/Jack would have told me I could be stopped? They also mentioned locations and dates which were very close to the actual location of truck at those times.
Perhaps their desire was to merely solve their problem quickly and not have to deal with any responsibility in replacing it. I agree that good money was spent for this device. In my mind the correct thing to do was to replace it. However that was not the route they choose.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
Thank you for your reply.
Do you have any idea of why Lo/Jack would have told me I could be stopped? They also mentioned locations and dates which were very close to the actual location of truck at those times.
Perhaps their desire was to merely solve their problem quickly and not have to deal with any responsibility in replacing it. I agree that good money was spent for this device. In my mind the correct thing to do was to replace it. However that was not the route they choose.
ONCE AGAIN I think that there is a distinct possibility that you were NOT contacted by Lo/Jack but by a scammer/hacker. The wording is similar to what a scammer/hacker would say.

Contact Lo/Jack via a method that you find out without referring to the emails or phone calls and discuss the situation with them.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
It most certainly does work the way I've described. Why do you think I posted?
I also never said anything about a fee.
My emails and phone calls are very clearly legit from Lo/Jack.
Then there's something fouled up because the code that the device emits is received by law enforcement devices. Law enforcement enters the code into SVS and the code corresponds with a reported stolen vehicle. So, either the code being emitted is a false code (and not connected to anything, certainly NOT a stolen vehicle), or, it is emanating a code for some other stolen vehicle. If for some other vehicle, the police will be looking for another make, model and color vehicle than yours. It does not simply ping a signal that says the car is stolen - at least not one that the police can act upon.

I DO understand how Lo-Jack works, I operated a car with the device in it and coordinated the training for almost 2 decades.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Agree.
That was my concern.
Lo/Jack specifically told me vehicle was at risk of being "contacted" by police.

Exact wording:
"In order to prevent you or whoever drives this truck from being contacted by law enforcement and to keep this unit from sending any more false alerts to law enforcement please contact me at your earliest convenience."
Then it sounds like you need to contact them so they can get the device to stop doing what it's doing. Better yet, remove it.
 

Koodog

Junior Member
Then there's something fouled up because the code that the device emits is received by law enforcement devices. Law enforcement enters the code into SVS and the code corresponds with a reported stolen vehicle. So, either the code being emitted is a false code (and not connected to anything, certainly NOT a stolen vehicle), or, it is emanating a code for some other stolen vehicle. If for some other vehicle, the police will be looking for another make, model and color vehicle than yours. It does not simply ping a signal that says the car is stolen - at least not one that the police can act upon.

I DO understand how Lo-Jack works, I operated a car with the device in it and coordinated the training for almost 2 decades.
Please forgive my response if it was offensive. It certainly was not meant to be.
I was only relaying the info as given me by Lo/Jack. I posted the exact wording of an email i received from the local LE liaison for them.
I did confirm this is a legit Lo/Jack employee.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
A retired officer may be familiar on how its supposed to work, but doubtful he would speak for EVERY LEO in the country.
It is NOT an individual LEO thing, it's a company thing. It is how Lo-Jack works. It works the same in Sacramento as it does in New York City, and the alphanumeric code is only activated when the vehicle has been entered into SVS. Even if a code is accidentally triggered, absent a paired stolen vehicle report in SVS (the national stolen vehicle database in NCIC), it would not come back as valid and there would be no reason to try and triangulate ... not to mention they would not know what they are looking for.

My comment was about my incident only. The device on my vehicle was transmitting that it was stolen, thus a defective unit. This came from the manufacturer, not a policeman.
If so, it is as I previously mentioned, it is a code that is so much meaningless gobblygook, or, it is a code of another stolen vehicle (which would seem pretty odd, but would also be a vehicle with a different description and likely would not result in your vehicle being stopped). It would also run out of juice over time. (Yes, they can lose power when they have been activated.)

Your comments reflect your ignorance of things not being perfect. I do know there are many parts of the country where Lo/Jack is unavailable. Thus I doubt LE would know much about their operation and have any procedures for them.
And in those parts of the country, they would not even be able to see the errant device's code, much less act on it.

Many departments have gone away from it as it does not seem to be nearly as popular as it was a couple of decades ago.
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Ad

Top